scarybunny
Rocket Queen
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 3,820
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2005
What about using embryos for stem cell research?
Turning off vegetables?
Turning off vegetables?
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Raped by her uncle, but can she have an abortion? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter miss-smexy
- Start date
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
No. (Unless they're already dead from natural means)
No.
I bite the bullet.
I am a pro-philosopher.
No.
I bite the bullet.
Define 'define'cosmic doris said:
I am a pro-philosopher.
scarybunny
Rocket Queen
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 3,820
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2005
Righto. That's one crazy hard line you've drawn for yourself.
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
As opposed to something completely arbitrary and pointless?
scarybunny
Rocket Queen
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 3,820
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2005
Nebuchanezzar said:
As opposed to a moral view that takes individual circumstances into account before making a judgement.
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
If one had bothered to actually read the thread, one might find the previous comment void.
Hey Neb,
What do you make of Singer's position, that we should look at the foetus for what it is - the actual characteristics it possesses - and value its life accordingly?
Seems a pretty solid arguement, unless you believe humans are somehow inherently better than other animals, regardless of the characteristics they possess, which seems a baseless arguement without the existence of god
"Singer argues that infants lack essential characteristics of personhood - "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" [23]- and therefore "imply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person."[24]."
From here: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----03.htm
What do you make of Singer's position, that we should look at the foetus for what it is - the actual characteristics it possesses - and value its life accordingly?
Seems a pretty solid arguement, unless you believe humans are somehow inherently better than other animals, regardless of the characteristics they possess, which seems a baseless arguement without the existence of god
"Singer argues that infants lack essential characteristics of personhood - "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" [23]- and therefore "
From here: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----03.htm
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
Firstly,
As for the argument itself, it's a bit of a leap to arrive at his conclusion. I mean, says who that these are the essential characteristics of being a human? Self-consciousness and rationality certainly seem to be characteristics of most humans (most), but also with certain animal species. Autonomy has never been a human characteristic as I'd argue that freedom and liberty is and has been severely limited for most humans. So I reject those properties and hence his conclusion doesn't follow.
My own basis on determining what is and isn't a human is biochemical, as it seems to be the most reliable means of determining humanity. I traced it back as far as I could to see when something became a human at an unarbitrary line (to avoid any shaky scenarios, in the same way that we use 'innocent until proven guilty'), and arrived at the sperm+egg situation.
I disagree. Elaborate.Graney said:
As for the argument itself, it's a bit of a leap to arrive at his conclusion. I mean, says who that these are the essential characteristics of being a human? Self-consciousness and rationality certainly seem to be characteristics of most humans (most), but also with certain animal species. Autonomy has never been a human characteristic as I'd argue that freedom and liberty is and has been severely limited for most humans. So I reject those properties and hence his conclusion doesn't follow.
My own basis on determining what is and isn't a human is biochemical, as it seems to be the most reliable means of determining humanity. I traced it back as far as I could to see when something became a human at an unarbitrary line (to avoid any shaky scenarios, in the same way that we use 'innocent until proven guilty'), and arrived at the sperm+egg situation.
So you'd say because someone is a member of Homo Sapiens, they are more important, their life should be valued more than all other organisms?
If you want to understand Singers position you should read his other writings on disability, euthanasia etc... but basically, he argues that because many of the great apes (among other species) show greater conciousness, and possess to a greater degree those functions of personhood than some severely disabled people, and certainly than a foetus, why should we value a human more than other animals, if the sum of it's function is less?
He's not argueing a foetus isn't a human, in the sense that it's biologically 'homo sapiens', but rather the reason we value human life so highly is because of the higher qualities we possess.
In which case, why should a human lacking those qualities be protected above the level of an animal such as a chimp, which possess a far greater intellect, self awareness etc...?
If you want to understand Singers position you should read his other writings on disability, euthanasia etc... but basically, he argues that because many of the great apes (among other species) show greater conciousness, and possess to a greater degree those functions of personhood than some severely disabled people, and certainly than a foetus, why should we value a human more than other animals, if the sum of it's function is less?
He's not argueing a foetus isn't a human, in the sense that it's biologically 'homo sapiens', but rather the reason we value human life so highly is because of the higher qualities we possess.
In which case, why should a human lacking those qualities be protected above the level of an animal such as a chimp, which possess a far greater intellect, self awareness etc...?
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
Biology, or at least the biology that I've been exposed to, doesn't classify organisms in the same way that philosophy does. That's probably a good thing imo. It's an interesting theory though. In essense, yes, being a part of a certain species does afford that species extra protection. If only (and I'm sure there are other reasons that I cbf'ed to think about) because propagation of own species looks to be encoded into each species.
As for the chimp part, I'd agree, chimps along with several other animals (elephants, pigs) deserve far greater protection from harm than they're afforded atm.
As for the chimp part, I'd agree, chimps along with several other animals (elephants, pigs) deserve far greater protection from harm than they're afforded atm.
Nah, that's just cultural. Human life has no inherent value, above a blade of grass. It's our measurable abilities, conciousness and intellect, that give us value.Nebuchanezzar said:
A foetus measurable values at the earliest stages of development is less than the lowest, most simple vertebrate.
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
...Graney said:
No it isn't.
Hmm, I took propagation to mean something else, sorry.
I disagree that because something (propagation in this case) is biologically natural, it is the right thing to do. Culture and philosophy override biology where necessary.
I don't understand what you're saying? That because we are biologically compelled to propagate, that gives a foetus value? Why?
I disagree that because something (propagation in this case) is biologically natural, it is the right thing to do. Culture and philosophy override biology where necessary.
I don't understand what you're saying? That because we are biologically compelled to propagate, that gives a foetus value? Why?
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
Because when we want to further our own species, we generally don't want to start killing them off unless that enables our offspring to advance faster/stronger etc.
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
Well actually most populations do actively regulate their size because overpopulation generally = local extinction.
We seem to have forgotten that.
We seem to have forgotten that.
bigboyjames
Banned
ask this guy
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=dQompldHyLE
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=dQompldHyLE
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
Morality, imo, doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from where everything else that's a part of a human comes from - the human genome. Hence, morality = population biology!Graney said:
Philosophy has no place in modern society when it has been so clearly usurped by science.
Take that Platocrates!
morals come from social conditioning.Nebuchanezzar said:Morality, imo, doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from where everything else that's a part of a human comes from - the human genome. Hence, morality = population biology!
Philosophy has no place in modern society when it has been so clearly usurped by science.
Take that Platocrates!
therefore there is no abosulute code of moral values that transcends time or social context.